Brand-new for 1946 - tell me about taildraggers, please

Yes, the Chief is nifty and often overlooked. A hangar neighbor of mine finished a PRISTINE restoration of a pre war Chief a couple of years ago. The engine cylinders are integral with the case halves.

The plane is beyond unbelievable and a hoot to fly.
 
Why do you guys think the Chief is considered less than the Champ? Is it just that the tandem seating in the Champ makes it more "Cub" like or is there some other characteristic that makes most pilots prefer it over the Chief? Just curious.
 
LandSickness said:
Why do you guys think the Chief is considered less than the Champ? Is it just that the tandem seating in the Champ makes it more "Cub" like or is there some other characteristic that makes most pilots prefer it over the Chief? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Stick vs yoke, also if you have any big people the tandem seating offers more room per person. The champ also seems to perform a little better for backcountry.
 
wabower said:
Unless the owner is an iron-butt zealot who plans to fly around the country at sub-highway speed, all of these planes are just weekend/evening toys that are seldom flown more than 50 miles from home. As a result, availability, even with several users, is virtually unlimited since the plane is usually close-by.
Click to expand...

and if you do travel in one the economy factor goes out the window because although it may have half the fuel burn it flys at half the speed so doing the math makes it look like a wash but flying half the speed also means you have to buy twice as many meals on the way. ;)

If traveling for travel's sake though they are great machines and even at highway speed if you keep it pointed in the same direction long enough you really can get somewhere before the sun sets. I've done a lot of flying of this sort, pure pleasure and nothing business-like about it. Upgrade to a modern seat cushion and the "iron-butt" is no longer a necessity but yes, the Champ originally had a four hour range and a one hour seat cushion. :eek:
 
LandSickness said:
Why do you guys think the Chief is considered less than the Champ? Is it just that the tandem seating in the Champ makes it more "Cub" like or is there some other characteristic that makes most pilots prefer it over the Chief? Just curious.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call the chief a "handful" but you definitely need to be quicker on your feet than with the champ
 
Another airplane to consider is a relative of the Pacer - the Clipper (PA-16). It's kind of the best of all worlds: Stick, euphemistic 4-seater, sporty to fly, short wings, large ailerons, and can be bought relatively cheap...only thing is they're somewhat rare, being only produced in 1939. I think it came with 135hp O-290, but with a 160hp O-320, it would do everything well. I've flown most of the aircraft mentioned...Champs are big and roomy - but fly like a tank. T-crafts are the most kite-like and small like a Model A. I've always had a soft spot for Luscombes, especially for a fabric-winged 8A model with an O-200. One other thing: Steer clear of any of these airplanes with too much crap in the instrument panel...they work best when they're very light-weight.
 
docmirror said:
Stinson 105 is another rare one. They have the easiest landing gear in the world, same as the 108. Despite that cute sideways seat, unless you are midgets, and the plane is bone stock with light fabric and ONE coat of paint, you can't get three in them.

It flies kind of piggish, but good at slow speeds with the wing slats for aileron authority. I would not generally consider it unless you specifically wanted a Stinson which is a good build plane. Some have Franklin engines, which is another point of contention.
Click to expand...

I'd recommend not to mess with a Stinson unless you have a reason or fly alot, most of the real Stinsons are larger planes and have a higher fuel burn.

Ive had mine for quite a while now and doubt I'll ever sell her, that being said it's not (nor is any Stinson) in that same grouping as the other planes mentioned on here and I have never recommended a Stinson to someone, it's one of those planes, unless you request it, it's best left off the menu.
 
Last edited:
NineThreeKilo said:
Stick vs yoke, also if you have any big people the tandem seating offers more room per person. The champ also seems to perform a little better for backcountry.
Click to expand...

Both Aeroncas have a lot of adverse yaw. Both look worse but fly better with the larger vertical stabilizer.

The Chief has a lot in common with the other side by side airplanes in the discussion. It is pretty narrow for two full size people and your eyeball level seems high relative to the wing and the window glass.

The Champ's appeal is that by being a tandem aircraft, elbow room is never a problem. Also, the pilot has a great view.
 
LandSickness said:
Why do you guys think the Chief is considered less than the Champ? Is it just that the tandem seating in the Champ makes it more "Cub" like or is there some other characteristic that makes most pilots prefer it over the Chief? Just curious.
Click to expand...


Having side by side seating means a wider fueslage, means more drag. Makes a different behaving plane out of it.

For me the stick is more fun, but really six of one and half dozen of the other.
 
rottydaddy said:
Via the Luscombe Endowment, the "go to" guys in the US for anything to do with Luscombes. Doug Combs is a bottomless well of Luscombe knowledge.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luscombe-silvaire/
Click to expand...

I took a 3-hour ground and air lesson with Combs last year in the Luscombe I was flying until recently. Well worth the money and we did well over four hours for the price of three.
 
BTW, y'all, I am enjoying this thread and learning a lot even if I am not posting much in it. I am here to learn and tend to keep my mouth shut at such times. So don't stop :)

I see that some are mentioning larger aircraft like the Stinson 108 or Piper PA-20. I like those airplanes and especially the PA-20. That is one of my favorite aircraft. I was just here primarily trying to learn about the vintage two-seater, 85 HP and below, taildraggers.
 
Three continuous hours in a Luscombe?

Hey - I saw your new movie 'Man of Steel'. Liked it. :D
 
docmirror said:
Three continuous hours in a Luscombe?

Hey - I saw your new movie 'Man of Steel'. Liked it. :D
Click to expand...

LOL. Nah, we did about 90 minutes on the ground, two hours in the air, then a bit more on the ground.

I did fly the Luscombe straight back to KTMB from KSPG trying to beat the dark another time. Closer to 2.5 hours there. Would not be so bad except that someone screwed up the seats with a weird bolster and turned them into real back-breakers :-(
 
MBDiagMan said:
Having side by side seating means a wider fueslage, means more drag. Makes a different behaving plane out of it.

For me the stick is more fun, but really six of one and half dozen of the other.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ. Name an aircraft faster than a luscombe on 65hp. (in similar category)
 
VanDy said:
I beg to differ. Name an aircraft faster than a luscombe on 65hp. (in similar category)
Click to expand...

Won't claim any expertise, but simple physics suggests that all things being equal, a tandem should be faster due to the decreased wind resistance of it's more narrow cockpit.
 
steingar said:
Won't claim any expertise, but simple physics suggests that all things being equal, a tandem should be faster due to the decreased wind resistance of it's more narrow cockpit.
Click to expand...

Then apparently all things are not equal :D
 
alfadog said:
LOL. Nah, we did about 90 minutes on the ground, two hours in the air, then a bit more on the ground.

I did fly the Luscombe straight back to KTMB from KSPG trying to beat the dark another time. Closer to 2.5 hours there. Would not be so bad except that someone screwed up the seats with a weird bolster and turned them into real back-breakers :-(
Click to expand...

It's kind of a sad state of affairs when one considers 'Cessna 150 seats!' a beneficial upgrade.
 
The presence of two seat cushions and two sticks on the same CG stations simply defines the configuration, not the usability by the general population.

alfadog said:
Then apparently all things are not equal :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
It's kind of a sad state of affairs when one considers 'Cessna 150 seats!' a beneficial upgrade.
Click to expand...


Well, us poor folks have to take what we can get. In my Cessna 140, having two individual seats for different sized pilots seemed like an upgrade to me, but what do I know?

When I hit the lottery I'll come up with something else. Until then, I'll try to enjoy my sad state of affairs.
 
VanDy said:
I beg to differ. Name an aircraft faster than a luscombe on 65hp. (in similar category)
Click to expand...


You're comparing oranges to apples. IF Luscombe made a like plane with fore/aft seating and a narrower fuselage, would it be faster or slower?

The Chief vs. the Champ seems like a fair comparison.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Well, us poor folks have to take what we can get. In my Cessna 140, having two individual seats for different sized pilots seemed like an upgrade to me, but what do I know?

When I hit the lottery I'll come up with something else. Until then, I'll try to enjoy my sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...

I don't know, what do you know? Things we take for granted in 2013 weren't even considered in 1946 vis-a-vis the GA seating of small two seat econobox planes. I flew many years in a bench seat Bonanza, so my POV is well founded.
 
steingar said:
Won't claim any expertise, but simple physics suggests that all things being equal, a tandem should be faster due to the decreased wind resistance of it's more narrow cockpit.
Click to expand...

Its not the overall width that matters as much as the frontal area as presented flat to the wind. The luscombe cowling is pretty narrow at the very front, and tapers back to the width of the cabin. Where as a J-3 is relatively more flat up front and continues straight back to a tandem seat.

Luscombe with run circles around a J-3 and pull away from Champ as well.

Airfoil design probably has a lot to do with it as well. Since the J-3 has some under camber which is very drag inducing.
 
Nothing even remotely sad about your deal, and a lot to like. Starting with the fact that it's quite comfortable for two people, even when one is referred to by former team-mates as "the widest of the wide receivers."



MBDiagMan said:
Well, us poor folks have to take what we can get. In my Cessna 140, having two individual seats for different sized pilots seemed like an upgrade to me, but what do I know?

When I hit the lottery I'll come up with something else. Until then, I'll try to enjoy my sad state of affairs.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Nothing even remotely sad about your deal, and a lot to like. Starting with the fact that it's quite comfortable for two people, even when one is referred to by former team-mates as "the widest of the wide receivers."
Click to expand...


Thanks Wayne!

Are you going to make it over to Taylor Airport this year? Weather permitting and if something doesn't come up, I hope to spend most of Saturday there this year.
 
MBDiagMan said:
You're comparing oranges to apples. IF Luscombe made a like plane with fore/aft seating and a narrower fuselage, would it be faster or slower?

The Chief vs. the Champ seems like a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

I see your point there,

Taylorcraft L2 (Tandem) cruise is about 83 and a BC-12D is about 93 on the same powerplant

champ is 90
http://www.aerowoodaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Champ-7AC-POH-Generic.pdf

and a cheif 90mph
http://www.aeronca.com/manuals/Chief-11AC-POH SB.pdf

the POH's seem to say support me as well. Although the Aeronca is a draw
 
"Its not the overall width that matters as much as the frontal area as presented flat to the wind. The luscombe cowling is pretty narrow at the very front, and tapers back to the width of the cabin. Where as a J-3 is relatively more flat up front and continues straight back to a tandem seat.

Luscombe with run circles around a J-3 and pull away from Champ as well.

Airfoil design probably has a lot to do with it as well. Since the J-3 has some under camber which is very drag inducing." Posted by VanDy


Thanks for this well worded explanation. I never thought of it that way.

Learn something new around here every day.
 
I'm planning to be there tomorrow and Saturday. Looking forward to seeing you again.

FYI, the pickin' and grinnin' session is tomorrow night, and pays pretty good. Last time they paid me $20 for every song I didn't sing.


MBDiagMan said:
Thanks Wayne!

Are you going to make it over to Taylor Airport this year? Weather permitting and if something doesn't come up, I hope to spend most of Saturday there this year.
Click to expand...
 
MBDiagMan said:
The Chief vs. the Champ seems like a fair comparison.
Click to expand...

It is but generally Chiefs are slightly faster than Champs so it doesn't go along with the theory about fuselage width. there are many other factors related to drag. For instance, when I am solo in my Champ it will cruise around 85 mph but if I put a 250 pound buddy in the back seat it'll do 92.
 
Silvaire said:
It is but generally Chiefs are slightly faster than Champs so it doesn't go along with the theory about fuselage width. there are many other factors related to drag. For instance, when I am solo in my Champ it will cruise around 85 mph but if I put a 250 pound buddy in the back seat it'll do 92.
Click to expand...

Aft CG = less downforce on the elevator = lower AOA at cruise and less drag = more speed.
 
Remember that the same guy designed the Cub and the Taylorcraft as well, and I'll challenge any 65 hp Cub to a race ANY day with my 65 hp Taylorcraft. Champs for that matter, too! The Luscombes and Taylorcrafts are just faster.

Ryan
 
RyanShort1 said:
Remember that the same guy designed the Cub and the Taylorcraft as well, and I'll challenge any 65 hp Cub to a race ANY day with my 65 hp Taylorcraft. Champs for that matter, too! The Luscombes and Taylorcrafts are just faster.

Ryan
Click to expand...


Piper sure was good at marketing though....
 
RyanShort1 said:
Remember that the same guy designed the Cub and the Taylorcraft as well, and I'll challenge any 65 hp Cub to a race ANY day with my 65 hp Taylorcraft. Champs for that matter, too! The Luscombes and Taylorcrafts are just faster.

Ryan
Click to expand...

I am sure that is true, but given the overall usefulness of any of the type speed would be the lowest item on my list of priorities.
 
Skylane81E said:
I am sure that is true, but given the overall usefulness of any of the type speed would be the lowest item on my list of priorities.
Click to expand...


It is very true

www.pipermuseum.com
In late 1930, William T. Piper purchased the assets of Taylor Brothers Aircraft Corporation for $761 and reorganized as the Taylor Aircraft Company. In 1935 Piper bought out C.G. Taylor who had remained in the role of company president. The factory was then located in Bradford PA. Taylor left the company and went on to form the Taylorcraft Aircraft Company.
Click to expand...
 
RyanShort1 said:
Remember that the same guy designed the Cub and the Taylorcraft as well, and I'll challenge any 65 hp Cub to a race ANY day with my 65 hp Taylorcraft. Champs for that matter, too! The Luscombes and Taylorcrafts are just faster.
Click to expand...

Nobody will argue that, but most just don't find them as much fun with their much worse outward visibility, and cramped side-by-side seating. And it's not just "nostalgia" with the Cub. Nothing else flies like it.
 
RoscoeT said:
Nobody will argue that, but most just don't find them as much fun with their much worse outward visibility, and cramped side-by-side seating. And it's not just "nostalgia" with the Cub. Nothing else flies like it.
Click to expand...
I love Cubs, but I guess it's all in one's taste. Also, cramped is relative if you are more the size of a 1950's guy... and weight 150 or less.

Ryan
 
Anyone here fly enough hours in an "old" Luscombe and the "new" Luscombe to give us a pirep?

I love the "old" Luscombe but have never flown the "new" one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top